If you were manager of the “Landscape Section”... (Page 2): Well, that is a wobbler, it is either a closeup of a landscape with a building or might be called "Architecture" or historic...

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Linda From Maine wrote:

Apparently so. I'm holding out for #2 not being a landscape

Well, that is a wobbler, it is either a closeup of a landscape with a building or might be called "Architecture" or historic but I would allow it in landscape if I was the gate keeper. Unless the forum was "sweeping landscape" instead of just "landscape".

cyclespeed Loc: Calgary, Alberta Canada

1,2,3,5 Thanks for letting us view these. the others are great images just not what my mind thinks are landscapes.

Linda2 Loc: Yakima Wa.

Ditto to Linda's votes including #2. Maybe it's the air in Yakima😄. I see so many things just as she does but she always beats me to commenting!😀😀😀

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

robertjerl wrote:

Well, that is a wobbler, it is either a closeup of a landscape with a building or might be called "Architecture" or historic but I would allow it in landscape if I was the gate keeper. Unless the forum was "sweeping landscape" instead of just "landscape".

Yes, and that's why I added, So if up to me, #2 would stand and I would hope to promote discussion about what is the subject and why/why not it is a "landscape."

I'm not positive of Uuglypher's purpose in posting this topic, but it exposes a few of the challenges of all forum moderators. Do you recall when Close-up first was formed? The moderators were extremely strict in their acceptance/rejection. They left and now the section is far looser. And when Lighthouse was active in Critique, he'd delete non-critique comments with great relish

Now that section is just a joke.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Linda2 wrote:

Ditto to Linda's votes including #2. Maybe it's the air in Yakima😄. I see so many things just as she does but she always beats me to commenting!😀😀😀

rotfl

Though you saw I do not believe #2 is landscape, right?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Uuglypher wrote:

...should each of the following images be acceptable to post in the “Landscape Photography Section”
(no critiques, please!)
Please respond to each number with “Yes” or “No”

Thanks,
Dave

The one with the Bird and the last two, no.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Linda From Maine wrote:

Yes, and that's why I added, i So if up to me, #2... (show quote)

Yes, I post my non-BIF and non-water birds in the Gallery and if I cropped to a close point of view also in closeup, but many of them are from a distance, they became closeup after PP. I sometimes wonder about doing that but it has become a habit and no one has objected. We need either just "Birds" or convert the BIF/on water section to include all birds.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Linda From Maine wrote:

rotfl

Though you saw I do not believe #2 is landscape, right?

Linda would #2 be more 'landscapy' to you if it included more of the surrounding area and was also horizontal? (

somewhere in my files I believe I have that very mill )

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

rmalarz wrote:

1-Yes
2-Yes
3-Yes
4-No
5-No
6-Yes
7-Yes.
8-Yes
9-No
10-No
--Bob

I concur

Bill_de Loc: US

robertjerl wrote:

Well, that is a wobbler, it is either a closeup of a landscape with a building or might be called "Architecture" or historic but I would allow it in landscape if I was the gate keeper. Unless the forum was "sweeping landscape" instead of just "landscape".

I agree. It is not always black and white, unless the image was done in black and white. But even then there are shades of grey.

--

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Rich1939 wrote:

Linda would #2 be more 'landscapy' to you if it included more of the surrounding area and was also horizontal? (

somewhere in my files I believe I have that very mill )

Orientation: I have many vertical landscapes

It would be the position and the size of the mill. In Uuglypher's posting, all elements lead us directly to the mill.

The whole point of the composition seems to be the mill. In dsmeltz's topic that opened this entire "thing" about a landscape forum, someone posted a barn that was a small part of the composition with huge mountains behind. That would be a landscape IMO with the hand of man demonstrating scale - vast rugged landscape vs. puny human presence.

But the value of discussing this one picture is (IMO again) that we are evaluating whether the photographer was successful. And to know if he was successful requires us to understand his intent when taking the picture.

awis01

Agree with Bob

steve1oshea Loc: Reading, England

Composition excellent.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

rmalarz wrote:

1-Yes
2-Yes
3-Yes
4-No
5-No
6-Yes
7-Yes
8-Yes
9-No
10-No
--Bob

What he said!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Linda From Maine wrote:

... The whole point of the composition seems to be the mill. ...

There is nothing wrong with that.

The whole point of a composition might have been any other focal point like a dam or a bridge. Just because it's man-made should not disqualify it.

More people agreed with including #2 than did not. But we need a more general definition of landscape than a collection of specific images.

We can have lots of opinions but whoever takes on the task of managing will apply their own judgement. So long as there is a little wiggle room and no contentious arguing over definitions it should all work out.